The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday for and against a Texas law that requires age verification on pornographic websites. Based on questions during those arguments, the justices appear poised to uphold the Texas law.

This conversation has become more frequent and pressing at a time when access to and production of adult content is at an all-time high.

Thirty years ago, viewing this type of “entertainment” entailed the effort of traveling to a store dedicated to X-rated material or paying for specific cable TV channels that were targeted at adults. Entire production teams, actors, and sets were needed to produce these films, and the selection was relatively limited. Furthermore, though the material was just as degrading and destructive as it is today, there were more figurative hoops to jump through to view it, and there was far less concern that the images or videos would be seen by anyone under the age of 18.

Fast-forward to today. Not only is graphic adult content accessible at the click of a mouse or the swiping of a screen, but we also have leftists pushing their agenda to completely eliminate any sort of shame from society by endorsing the idea of “freedom” from all constraints. We are to celebrate participation in any activity, regardless of how depraved, as the liberal idea of “you are free to do what you want, when you want, how you want.” We now have a problem that has spiraled out of control. So, how do we close the Pandora’s box?

Texas is one of several states that is attempting to tackle this dilemma with a law that requires adult sites to verify the user as being over the age of 18.

In 2023, the state passed a law that asks consumers of adult content to submit their ID to prove that they are of a legal age to enter these sites. “Texas is among more than a dozen states with similar laws aimed at blocking young children and teenagers from viewing pornography,” according to the Associated Press. “The adult-content site Pornhub has stopped operating altogether in several of those states, citing technical privacy hurdles in complying with the laws.” To further solidify that sexually graphic content is shockingly easy to find, regardless of age, Texas argues that the measure “is necessary to protect children from the current near-instantaneous access to porn, including hardcore obscene material, on smartphones.”

It is highly ironic that a website centered on exposing everything men and women have to offer expresses concerns about privacy. Based on the nature of the images and videos, it might be safe to suggest that privacy would actually work against its profit margin.

Protecting children from being able to view pornographic material used to be relatively universally accepted, and anyone seen opposing these efforts would receive a side-eye and maybe even a push to have their own hard drive checked. However, per the previously mentioned moral spiral downward, today we are having to fight against our own elected representatives, as they unabashedly make arguments against putting protective barriers for children in place.

Those opposed to the age verification laws suggest that, of all things, free speech is on the line. They contend that limiting access to viewing the most lewd and depraved activities is a violation of free speech.

Another argument against these laws concerns identity theft. Some question data security when required to submit an ID to verify your age on a website. Yet it might be hard to defend these contentions as legitimate when it has become the norm in the Western world to enter an ID, credit card, and banking and other personal information on shopping websites worldwide, and most of us do so with little more than some grumbling.

If identity theft by showing your government identification is really a concern, then we need to discuss the activities of purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, medication, or marijuana, as well as inputting an ID online to fly on an airplane, purchase an event ticket, or set up a doctor’s appointment.

The most egregious of positions against the move to ensure that porn users are actually of age is the suggestion that the efforts to stop porn access have never entirely worked, so why bother fighting it? In an article, Free Press reporter River Page begins his case in favor of unlimited access to sexually graphic material with a virtuous goal: wanting to protect free speech. However, he quickly follows this noble hook with a dive into the idea that age verification is really about conservatives wanting more control. Since laws to combat widespread porn access have had little impact on this problem throughout history, he says, and kids can view these things on social media anyway, then it makes more sense to accept the direction we are headed. He has forgotten his history. Cellphones didn’t exist until relatively recently, and there weren’t masses of children addicted to porn before the cellphone era.

“Porn is inevitable,” Page insists. “Even a national ban, as proposed by the Heritage Foundation’s controversial Project 2025 policy wish list, wouldn’t work without banning VPN’s as well as effectively constructing a massive surveillance project akin to the Great Firewall of China. The day an American teenager with a normal IQ can’t access porn on an unfiltered internet connection is the day freedom no longer exists in the United States. If you want an open internet where even a nominal amount of privacy is possible, that is the cost.”

With that logic, then kids should have full access to booze, guns, and driver’s licenses, too, normal IQ or not. Porn may be inevitable, but it should never be incentivized.

Granted, among the few sensible points he makes in this piece, Page does acknowledge the significant role that parents play in monitoring their children’s devices and their responsibility to restrict Internet access. He writes, “The institution most capable of stopping your children from viewing pornography is the family. If you don’t want your kid watching porn, don’t get them unlimited access to the internet.”

That is a valid point. However, as with most of the activists on the libertine side, the effort to sexualize children at every turn is intentionally being used to undermine even the most valiant efforts by the most engaged parents. A case in point is the renaming of removing sexually explicit books from public school libraries to “book bans” and referring to those of us who support this movement as “Nazis.”

No doubt, combating the growing availability of X-rated content on social media apps is not going to be easy, and the solution may take trial and error. Yet the notion that searching for solutions to protect kids from material they are not psychologically prepared to deal with is pointless, or presenting any attempt to do so as an attack on freedom, is hogwash.

Proponents are shamelessly advocating for the destruction and enslavement of children and adults alike, as that is the real result of porn addiction. It is the very opposite of freedom.